Report to Congressional Committees 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

May 2003 PROGRAM 

EVALUATION 

An Evaluation Culture 

and Collaborative 

Partnerships Help 

Build Agency Capacity 

GAO-03-454 
In the five agencies GAO reviewed, the key elements of evaluation capacity 

were an evaluation culture—a commitment to self-examination, data quality, 

analytic expertise, and collaborative partnerships. ACF, NHTSA, and NSF 

initiated evaluations regularly, through a formal process, while HUD and the 

Coast Guard conducted them as specific questions arose. Access to credible, 

reliable, and consistent data was critical to ensure findings were 

trustworthy. These agencies needed access to expertise in both research 

methods and subject matter to produce rigorous and objective assessments. 

Collaborative partnerships leveraged resources and expertise. ACF, HUD, 

and NHTSA primarily partnered with state and local agencies; the Coast 

Guard partnered primarily with federal agencies and the private sector. 

The five agencies used various strategies to develop and improve evaluation: 

Commitment to learning from evaluation developed to support policy 

debates and demands for accountability. Some agencies improved 

administrative systems to improve data quality. Others turned to specialized 

data collection. All five agencies typically contracted with experts for 

specialized analyses. Some agencies provided their state partners with 

technical assistance. These five agencies used creative strategies to leverage 

resources and obtain useful evaluations. Other agencies could adopt these 

strategies—with leadership commitment—to develop evaluation capacity, 

despite possible impediments: constraints on spending, local control over 

flexible programs, and restrictions on federal information collection. The 

agencies agreed with our descriptions of their programs and evaluations. 

Key Elements of Agency Evaluation Capacity 

Evaluation culture:

regular assessments to inform

program improvement

Data quality:

credibility, reliability,

and consistency

Analytic expertise:

knowledge of research methods and

relevant subject matter

Collaborative partnerships:

the sharing of resources and expertise

 among stakeholders

Source: GAO. 

Agencies are increasingly asked to 

demonstrate results, but many 

programs lack credible 

performance information and the 

capacity to rigorously evaluate 

program results. To assist agency 

efforts to provide credible 

information, GAO examined the 

experiences of five agencies that 

demonstrated evaluation capacity 

in their performance reports: the 

Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF), the Coast Guard, 

the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), and the 

National Science Foundation 

(NSF). 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-454.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Nancy 

Kingsbury at (202) 512-2700 or 

KingsburyN@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-454, a report to 

Congressional Committees 

May 2003

PROGRAM EVALUATION 

An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative 

Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity 
Page i GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Scope and Methodology 5

Case Descriptions 6

Key Elements of Evaluation Capacity 9

Strategies for Enhancing Evaluation Capacity 14

Factors That Impede Building Evaluation Capacity 24

Observations 24

Agency Comments 25

Bibliography 26 

Related GAO Products 28 

Figures 

Figure 1: Key Elements of Agency Evaluation Capacity 9

Figure 2: Agency Strategies for Building Evaluation Capacity 15

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Abbreviations 

ACF Administration for Children and Families 

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

ASPE Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 

CDBG Community Development Block Grant 

COV Committee of Visitors 

CPD Community Planning and Development 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HOME HOME Investment Partnerships Program 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training 

MDRC Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 

MIS management information system 

MPA Masters in Public Administration 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

PD&R Office of Policy Development and Research 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

May 2, 2003 

The Honorable Susan Collins 

Chairman 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable George Voinovich 

Chairman 

The Honorable Richard Durbin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

 the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Federal agencies are increasingly expected to focus on achieving results 

and to demonstrate, in annual performance reports and budget requests, 

how their activities help achieve agency or governmentwide goals. The 

current administration has made linking budgetary resources to results 

one of the top five priorities of the President’s Management Agenda. As 

part of this initiative, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

begun to rate agency effectiveness through summarizing available 

performance and evaluation information. However, in preparing the 

2004 budget, OMB found that half the programs they rated were unable to 

demonstrate results. We have also noted limitations in the quality of 

agency performance and evaluation information and agency capacity to 

produce rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness.1

 To sustain a 

credible performance-based focus in budgeting and ensure fair 

assessments of agency and program effectiveness, federal agencies, as 

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges, 

GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002). 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

well as those third parties that implement federal programs, will require 

significant improvements in evaluation information and capacity. 

To assist agency efforts to provide credible information on program 

effectiveness, we (1) reviewed the experiences of five agencies with 

diverse purposes that have demonstrated evaluation capacitythe ability 

to systematically collect, analyze, and use data on program results and 

(2) identified useful capacity-building strategies that other agencies might 

adopt. The five agencies are the Administration for Children and Families 

(ACF), the Coast Guard, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). We developed this 

report under our own initiative, and are addressing this report to you 

because of your interest in encouraging results-based management. 

To identify the five cases, we reviewed agency documents and evaluation 

studies for examples of agencies incorporating the results of program 

evaluations in annual performance reports. We selected these five cases 

because they include diverse program purposes: regulation, research, 

demonstration, and service delivery (directly or through third parties). We 

reviewed agency evaluation studies and other documents and interviewed 

agency officials to identify (1) the key elements of each agency’s 

evaluation capacity and how they varied across the agencies and (2) the 

strategies these agencies used to build evaluation capacity. 

In the agencies we reviewed, the key elements of evaluation capacity 

were: an evaluation culture, data quality, analytic expertise, and 

collaborative partnerships. Agencies demonstrated an evaluation culture 

through regularly evaluating how well programs were working. Managers 

valued and used this information to test out new initiatives or assess 

progress toward agency goals. Agencies emphasized access to data that 

were credible, reliable, and consistent across jurisdictions to ensure that 

evaluation findings were trustworthy. Agencies also needed access to 

analytic expertise to produce rigorous and objective assessments at either 

the federal or another level of government. Each agency needed research 

expertise, as well as expertise in the relevant program field, such as labor 

economics, or engineering. Finally, agencies formed collaborations with 

program partners and others to leverage resources and expertise to obtain 

performance information. 

The key elements of evaluation capacity took various forms and were 

more or less apparent across the five cases we reviewed. At ACF, NHTSA, 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

and NSF, the evaluation culture was readily visible because these agencies 

initiated evaluations on a regular basis, through a formal process. In 

contrast, at HUD and the Coast Guard, evaluations were conducted on an 

ad hoc basis, in response to questions raised about specific initiatives or 

issues. At ACF, HUD, and NHTSA, where states and other parties had 

substantial control over the design and implementation of the program, 

access to credible data played a critical role, and partnerships with state 

and local agencies were more evident. At the Coast Guard, partnerships 

with federal agencies and the private sector were more evident. 

The five agencies we reviewed used various strategies to develop and 

improve evaluation. Agency evaluation culture, an institutional 

commitment to learning from evaluation, was developed to support policy 

debates and demands for accountability. Some agencies developed their 

administrative systems to improve data quality for evaluation. Others 

turned to special data collections. To ensure common meaning of data 

collected across localities, some agencies created specialized data 

systems. The five federal agencies typically contracted with experts for 

specialized analyses. These agencies also helped states obtain expertise 

through developing program staff or hiring local contractors. Some 

collaborative partnerships developed naturally through pursuit of common 

goals, while other agencies actively solicited their stakeholders’ 

involvement in evaluation. 

To provide credible information on program effectiveness, these five 

agencies described creative strategies for leveraging their resources and 

those of their program partners. Supported by leadership commitment, 

other agencies could adopt these strategies to develop evaluation capacity. 

However, agency officials also cited conditions that can be expected to 

create impediments for others as well: constraints on spending program 

resources on oversight, local control over the design and implementation 

of flexible programs, and restrictions on federal information collection. 

Federal agencies are increasingly expected to demonstrate effectiveness in 

achieving agency or governmentwide goals. The Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires federal agencies to report 

annually on their progress in achieving agency and program goals. The 

President’s Budget and Performance Integration initiative extends GPRA’s 

efforts to improve government performance and accountability by 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

bringing performance information more directly into the budgeting 

process.2

 In developing the fiscal year 2004 budget, OMB (1) asked 

agencies to more directly link expected performance with requested 

program activity funding levels and (2) prepared effectiveness ratings, 

with a newly devised Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), for about 

one-fifth of federal programs. 

The PART consists of a standard set of questions that OMB and agency 

staff complete together, drawing on available performance and evaluation 

information. The PART questions assess the clarity of program design and 

strategic planning and rate agency management and program 

performance. The PART asks, for example, whether program long-term 

goals are specific, ambitious, and focused on outcomes, and whether 

annual goals demonstrate progress toward achieving long-term goals. It 

also asks whether the program has achieved its annual performance goals 

and demonstrated progress toward its long-term goals. Ratings are 

designed to be evidence-based, drawing on a wide array of information, 

including authorizing legislation, GPRA strategic plans and performance 

plans and reports, financial statements, Inspector General and our reports, 

and independent program evaluations. 

Almost a decade after GPRA was enacted, the accuracy and quality of 

evaluation information necessary to make the judgments called for in 

rating programs is highly uneven across the federal government. GPRA 

expanded the supply of results-oriented performance information 

generated by federal agencies. However, in the 2004 budget, OMB rated 

50 percent of the programs evaluated as “Results Not Demonstrated” 

because they did not have adequate performance goals or had not 

collected data to produce evidence of results. We have noted that agencies 

have had difficulty assessing (1) many program outcomes that are not 

quickly achieved or readily observed and (2) contributions to outcomes 

that are only partly influenced by federal funds.3

 To help explain the 

linkages between program activities, outputs and outcomes, a program 

evaluation—depending on its focus—may review aspects of program 

operations or factors in the program environment. In impact evaluation, 

scientific research methods are used to establish a causal connection 

 2

Strategic management of human capital, competitive sourcing, improving financial 

performance, and expanded electronic government are the other four initiatives in the 

President’s Management Agenda, described at the Web site www.results.gov. 

3

GAO-02-1106T. 
Page 5 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

between program activities and outcomes and to isolate the program’s 

contributions to them. Our previous work raised concerns about the 

capacity of federal agencies to produce evaluations of program 

effectiveness.4 Few deployed the rigorous research methods required to 

attribute changes in underlying outcomes to program activities. Yet, we 

have also seen how some agencies have profitably drawn on systematic 

program evaluations to explain the reasons for program performance and 

identify strategies for improvement.5

To identify ways that agencies can improve evaluation capacity, we 

conducted case studies of how five agencies had built evaluation capacity 

over time. To select the cases, we reviewed departmental and agency 

performance plans and reports, as well as evaluation reports, for examples 

of how agency performance reports had incorporated evaluation results. 

To obtain a broadly applicable set of strategies, we selected cases to 

reflect a diversity of federal program purposes. Because program purpose 

is central to considering how to evaluate effectiveness or worth, the type 

of evaluation an agency conducts might shape the key elements of the 

agency’s evaluation capacity. For this review, we selected cases based on 

a classification of program purposes employed in our previous 

studydemonstration, regulation, research, and service delivery.6

The first three classifications are represented in our case selection of ACF, 

NHTSA, and NSF. For service delivery, we chose one agency that delivers 

services directly to the public (the Coast Guard), and another that 

provides services through third parties (HUD). Although we selected cases 

to capture a diversity of federal program experiences, the cases should not 

be considered to represent all the challenges faced or strategies used. We 

describe all five cases in the next section. 

 4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Agencies Challenged by New 

Demand for Information on Program Results, GAO/GGD-98-53 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24, 

1998). 

5

U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure 

or Explain Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000). 

6

U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of 

Information to the Congress, GAO/PEMD-95-1 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 1995). 

Demonstration programs are defined here as those that aim to produce evidence of the 

feasibility or effectiveness of a new approach or practice. Other program types include 

statistical, acquisition, and credit programs. 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Page 6 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

For each agency, to identify the key elements of evaluation capacity and 

strategies used to build capacity, we reviewed agency and program 

materials and interviewed agency officials. Our findings are limited to the 

examples reviewed and do not necessarily reflect the full scope of each 

agency’s evaluation activities. For example, we did not review all HUD 

evaluations, only evaluations of flexible grant programs. We conducted 

our work between June 2002 and March 2003 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the heads of the 

agencies responsible for the five cases. The Departments of Health and 

Human Services and Housing and Urban Development provided technical 

comments that we incorporated where appropriate throughout the report. 

We describe the program structures, major activities, and evaluation 

approaches for the five cases in this section. 

ACF, in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), oversees 

and helps finance programs to promote the economic and social wellbeing of families, individuals, and communities. Through the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, ACF provides block 

grants to states so that they can develop programs of financial and other 

assistance. These programs help needy families find employment and 

economic self-sufficiency. In 1996, TANF replaced Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC), commonly referred to as welfare, and the 

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs. Under the 

AFDC program, states conducted demonstrations, for three decades, to 

test out alternative approaches for moving recipients off welfare and into 

work. As part of a broad array of studies of poverty populations and 

programs, ACF and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation (ASPE) continue to support evaluations of state welfare-towork experiments, including implementation and process studies, as well 

as impact studies based on experimental evaluation methods. 

In the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Coast Guard provides 

diverse customer services to ensure safe and efficient marine 

transportation, protect national borders, enforce maritime laws and 

treaties, and protect natural resources. The Coast Guard’s mission 

includes enhancing mobility, by providing aids to navigation, icebreaking 

services, bridge administration, and vessel traffic management activities; 

security, through law enforcement and border control activities; and 

Case Descriptions 

Administration for 

Children and Families 

(ACF) 

Coast Guard 
Page 7 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

safety, through programs for accident prevention, response, and 

investigation. The agency monitors numerous indicators to assess 

allocation of resources to and performance in achieving service goals. The 

Coast Guard has initiated an effort to evaluate its direct services and 

resource-building efforts through a Readiness Management System, which 

covers people, equipment, and stations. In addition, special studies of the 

success of specific initiatives may be contracted out. 

The HUD Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) provides 

financial and technical assistance to states and localities in order to 

promote community-based efforts to develop housing and economic 

opportunities. CPD’s largest program, the Community Development Block 

Grant program (CDBG) has, for the past two decades, provided formula 

grants to cities, urban counties, and states to foster decent, affordable 

housing, and expanded economic opportunities for low- and moderateincome people. Communities may use funds for a wide range of activities 

directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and 

improved community facilities and services.7

 CPD also administers the 

HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), a block grant to state 

and local governments, to create decent, affordable housing for lowincome families. First funded in 1992, HOME has more specific goals than 

CDBG: (1) to help build, buy, or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or 

home ownership or (2) to provide direct tenant-based rental assistance. In 

addition to maintaining information on housing need, market conditions, 

and programs across the department, HUD’s Office of Policy Development 

and Research (PD&R) supports studies of the use and benefits of the 

CDBG and HOME grants. 

To promote highway safety, DOT’s NHTSA develops regulations and 

provides financial and technical assistance to states and local 

communities. These communities, in turn, conduct highway safety 

programs that respond to local needs. To identify the most effective and 

efficient means to bring about safety improvements, NHTSA also conducts 

research and development in vehicle design and driver behavior. To assess 

the effectiveness of its regulatory and safety promotion efforts, NHTSA 

 7

CDBG programs are often small-scale “bricks and mortar” initiatives that may include such 

activities, among others, as the reconstruction of streets, water and sewer facilities, and 

neighborhood centers, and rehabilitation of public and private buildings. 

Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) 

National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) 
Page 8 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

reviews outcomes, such as reduction of alcohol-related fatalities or 

increase in helmet or safety belt use. To illuminate the causes and 

outcomes of crashes and evaluate safety standards and initiatives, NHTSA 

analyzes state and specially created national databases, for example, the 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 

NSF funds education programs and a broad array of research projects in 

the physical, geological, biological, and social sciences; mathematics; 

computing; and engineering; which are expected to lead to innovative 

discoveries. NSF provides support for investigator-initiated research 

proposals that are competitively selected, based on merit reviews. The 

agency has a long-standing review infrastructure in place: for each 

individual research program, panels of outside experts rank proposals on 

merit. NSF also convenes panels of independent experts as external 

advisers—a Committee of Visitors (COV)to peer review the technical 

and managerial stewardship of a specific program or cluster of programs 

periodically, compare plans with progress made, and evaluate outcomes to 

determine whether the research contributes to NSF mission and goals. 

Each COV, based on an academic peer review model, usually consists of 

5 to 20 external experts, who represent academia, industry, government, 

and the public sector. These reviews serve as a means of quality assurance 

for NSF management. About a third of the 220 NSF programs are 

evaluated each year so that a complete assessment of programs can be 

accomplished over a 3-year period. 

National Science 

Foundation (NSF) 
Page 9 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Four main elements of evaluation capacity were apparent across the 

diverse array of agencies we reviewed, although they took varied forms. 

These elements include an evaluation culture, data quality, analytic 

expertise, and collaborative partnerships. (See figure 1.) Agencies 

demonstrated an evaluation culture through commitment to selfexamination and learning through experimentation. Data quality and 

analytic expertise were key to ensuring the credibility of evaluation results 

and conclusions. Agency collaboration with federal and other program 

partners helped leverage resources and expertise for evaluation. 

Figure 1: Key Elements of Agency Evaluation Capacity 

Three of our casesACF, NHTSA, and NSFclearly evidenced an 

evaluation culture: they had a formal, regular process in place to plan, 

execute, and use information from evaluations. They described a 

commitment to learning through analysis and experimentation. HUD and 

Key Elements of 

Evaluation Capacity 

An Evaluation Culture 

Evaluation culture:

regular assessments to inform

program improvement

Data quality:

credibility, reliability,

and consistency

Analytic expertise:

knowledge of research methods and

relevant subject matter

Collaborative partnerships:

the sharing of resources and expertise

 among stakeholders

Source: GAO. 
Page 10 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

the Coast Guard had more ad hoc arrangements in place when questions 

about specific initiatives or issues created the demand for evaluations. 

HUD officials described an annual, consultative process to decide which 

studies to undertake within budgeted resources. 

At ACF, evaluations of state welfare-to-work demonstration programs are 

a part of a network of long-term federal, state, and local efforts to develop 

effective welfare policy. Over the past three decades, ACF has supported 

evaluations of state experiments in how to help welfare recipients find 

work and achieve economic self-sufficiency. Until TANF replaced AFDC in 

1996, states were permitted waivers of federal rules to test new welfare-towork initiatives on condition that states rigorously evaluate the effects of 

those demonstrations. Lessons from these evaluations informed not only 

state policies, but also the formulation of the JOBS work support program 

in 1988 and the TANF work requirements in 1996. ACF and ASPE continue 

to support rigorous evaluation of state policy experiments to obtain 

credible evidence on their effectiveness. 

At NHTSA, evaluation was a natural part of meeting the agency’s principal 

responsibility to develop and oversee federal regulations to enhance 

safety. NHTSA officials said regulatory programs are inherently evaluative 

in nature because only thorough evaluations of safety issues can lay the 

foundation for effective regulatory policies. Officials described a tri-part 

process for evaluation: First, studies to identify the nature of the problem 

and possible solutions precede proposals for regulatory or other policy 

changes. Second, cost-benefit analyses identify the expected 

consequences of alternative approaches. Third, follow-up studies to assess 

the consequences of regulatory changes are important because effects of 

some safety innovations may not manifest until 5 or more years after the 

introduction of changes. These evaluations address the long-term practical 

consequences of new regulations. At NHTSA, diverse evaluation studies 

played an integral role throughout the regulatory process. 

At NSF, efforts to evaluate its research programs are described as 

congruent with the scientific community’s natural tendency toward selfexamination. The NSF oversight body, the National Science Board, issued 

a report noting that today’s environment requires effective management of 

the federal portfolio of long-term investments in research, including a 

sustained advisory process that incorporates participation by the science 

and engineering communities. The COV process to oversee NSF research 

portfolios has been in place for the past 25 years. During that time, NSF 

has repeatedly assessed and improved the COV process. COV review 

templates include questions that assess how the research is contributing to 
Page 11 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

NSF process and outcome goals. The templates assess, for example, 

(1) both the integrity and efficiency of the proposal review process and 

(2) whether the portfolio of projects has made significant contributions to 

NSF’s strategic outcome goals such as “enabling discoveries that advance 

the frontiers of science, engineering, and technology.” Division directors 

consider COV recommendations in guiding program direction and report 

on implementation when the COV returns 3 years later. 

Credible information is essential to drawing conclusions about program 

effectiveness. In the cases we examined, agencies strived to ensure the 

trustworthiness of data obtained through monitoring or evaluation. Data 

quality involves data credibility and reliability, as well as consistency 

across jurisdictions. Reliance on states and localities for data on program 

performance made this a major issue at ACF, HUD, and NHTSA. 

For example, NHTSA has devoted considerable effort to develop a series 

of comparable statistics, on various crash outcomes and safety measures 

of continuing interest, from varied public and private sources. NHTSA 

currently maintains seven different public use data files that are updated 

on a regular (typically, annual) basis.8

 These data files provide the 

empirical basis for evaluating NHTSA regulatory programs focused on 

public health and safety. Although the databases have acknowledged 

shortcomings, a NHTSA official noted, “These are the most used databases 

in the world.” They are well accepted and used in many program 

evaluations by safety experts and industry analysts, he noted. NHTSA’s 

record of building well-accepted databases on crash outcomes provides an 

example of how quality outcome measures can be obtained when causal 

relationships are well-studied and relatively straightforward. 

The agencies reviewed sought access to analytic expertise to ensure 

assessments of program results would be systematic, credible, and 

objective. To obtain rigorous analyses, agencies engaged people with 

research expertise and subject matter expertise to ensure the appropriate 

interpretation of study findings. 

 8

These seven data files provide the empirical basis for analyses of patterns and trends in 

(1) motor vehicle fatalities; (2) vehicular crashworthiness; (3) medical and financial 

outcomes of highway crashes; (4) consumer complaints related to vehicles, tires, and other 

equipment; (5) outcomes of safety defect investigations; (6) motor vehicle compliance 

testing results; and (7) motor vehicle safety defect recalls. 

Data Quality 

Analytic Expertise 
Page 12 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

At ACF, officials indicated that experience in conducting field experiments 

was critical to obtaining rigorous evaluations. Rigorous methods are 

required to estimate the net impact of welfare-to-work programs because 

many other factors, such as the economy, can influence whether welfare 

recipients find employment. Without similar information on a control 

group not subject to the intervention, it is difficult to know how many 

program participants might otherwise have found employment without the 

program. Conducting a rigorous impact evaluation—randomly assigning 

cases to either an experimental or control group, tracking the experiences 

of both groups, and ensuring standardized data collection and appropriate 

analysis procedures—requires special expertise in social science research. 

According to ACF officials, they had success in obtaining many such 

evaluations, in part, because of the existence of a large community of 

knowledgeable and experienced researchers in universities and 

contracting firms. 

NSF relied on external expert review in its evaluation of research 

proposals, as well as completed research and development projects. The 

expert or peer review model allows NSF to tap the specialized 

knowledge—across many fieldsthat is critical to assessing whether 

funded research is making a contribution to the field. Although all 

agencies required research expertise as well as subject matter expertise 

that pertained to the program, NSF’s task was compounded by having to 

cover a broad array of scientific disciplines. Because of the potential for 

subjectivity in these qualitative judgments, an additional independent 

review may be necessary to determine the validity of assessments made 

about progress in achieving scientific discoveries. NSF contracted with 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, a professional services organization that 

provides assurance on the financial performance and operations of 

business, to independently assess NSF performance results by examining 

COV scores and justifications. 

Agencies engaged in collaborative partnerships for the purpose of 

leveraging resources and expertise. These partnerships played an 

important role in obtaining performance information. Many agencies share 

goals with others. Moreover, evaluation capacity at the federal level often 

depends on the willingness of state and local agencies to participate in 

rigorous evaluation because of their responsibility for designing and 

implementing programs. At ACF and HUD, collaboration with both states 

and localities, as well as with the policy analysis and research 

communities, plays a central role in evaluation. 

Collaborative Partnerships 
Page 13 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Particularly for the Coast Guard, the challenge of achieving national 

preparedness requires the federal government to form collaborative 

partnerships with many entities. The primary means of coordination at 

many ports are port security committees, which offer a forum for federal, 

state, and local government, as well as private stakeholders to share 

information and work together collaboratively to make decisions. The 

breadth of the Coast Guard’s public safety responsibilities seemed to 

increase the number and importance of its partnerships. In order to 

improve maritime security worldwide, the Coast Guard is working with 

the International Maritime Organization. Such partnerships can be critical 

to gaining the resources, expertise, and cooperation of those who must 

implement the security measures. 

In addition, agencies recognized that by working together they could more 

comprehensively address evaluations of programs. For example, for drug 

interdiction, the Coast Guard is a key player in deterring the flow of illegal 

drugs into the United States. For maritime drug interdiction, it is the lead 

federal agency; it shares responsibility for air interdiction with the U.S. 

Customs Service. To reduce the illegal drug supply, the Coast Guard 

coordinates closely with other federal agencies and countries within a 

Transit Zone9

 so as to disrupt and deter the flow of illegal drugs. 

Recognizing the interdependence of agency efforts, the Coast Guard and 

U.S. Customs Service, along with the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy (ONDCP), jointly funded a study to examine the deterrence effect 

of drug enforcement operations on drug smuggling. The study assessed 

whether interdiction operations or events affected cocaine trafficking. 

At ACF and HUD, collaboration with state and local agency program 

partners was important in evaluating programs. Because of the flexibility 

in program design given to the states, the studies of flexible grant 

programs tend to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular state or 

locality’s program, rather than the national program. As an evaluation 

partner, state agencies need to be willing to participate in rigorous 

evaluation design and take the risk that programs may not be found to be 

as successful as they had hoped. While researchers may be hired to design 

and execute the evaluation, the state agency may be expected to design an 

innovative program, ensure the program is carried out as planned, 

 9

The Transit Zone is a 6 million square mile area, including the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, 

and Eastern Pacific Ocean. 
Page 14 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

maintain distinctions between the treatment and comparison groups, and 

ensure collection of valid and reliable data. 

Through a number of strategies, the five agencies we reviewed developed 

and maintained a capacity to produce and use evaluations. First, agency 

managers sustained a commitment to accountability and to improving 

program performanceto institutionalize an evaluation culture. Second, 

they improved administrative systems or turned to special data collections 

to obtain better quality data. Third, they sought outthrough external 

sources or development of staffwhatever expertise was needed to 

ensure the credibility of analyses and conclusions. Finally, to leverage 

their evaluation resources and expertise, agencies engaged in 

collaborations or actively educated and solicited the support and 

involvement of their program partners and stakeholders. (See figure 2.) 

Strategies for 

Enhancing Evaluation 

Capacity 
Page 15 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Figure 2: Agency Strategies for Building Evaluation Capacity 

Evaluation culture

Data quality

Analytic expertise

Collaborative partnerships

• Improve administrative data systems

• Provide partners with technical

assistance

• Conduct special data collections

• Contract with experts for specialized

analyses

• Build staff expertise

• Provide partners with technical

assistance

• Join program partners in pursuit of

common goals

• Educate program partners and solicit

their involvement or support

• Commit to self-examination and

improvement

• Support policy debate through

experimentation

• Respond to demands for accountability

Elements of evaluation capacity

Strategies for developing elements

Source: GAO.
Page 16 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Demand for information on what works stimulated some agencies to 

develop an institutional commitment to evaluation. The agencies we 

reviewed did not appear to deliberately set out to build an evaluation 

culture. Rather, a systematic, reinforcing process of self-examination and 

improvement seemed to grow with the support and involvement of agency 

leadership and oversight bodies. ACF and Coast Guard officials described 

the process as a response to external conditionspolicy debates and 

budget constraints, respectivelythat stimulated a search for a more 

effective approach than in the past. 

The evaluation culture at ACF grew as a result of a reinforcing cycle of 

rigorous research providing credible, relevant information to policymakers 

who then came to support and encourage additional rigorous research. In 

the late 1960s, federal policymakers turned to applied social research 

experiments (for example, the New Jersey-Pennsylvania Negative Income 

Tax experiment) to inform the debate about how to shape an effective 

antipoverty strategy. In 1974, the Ford Foundation joined with several 

federal agencies to set up a nonprofit firm (the Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation (MDRC)) to develop and evaluate promising 

demonstrations of interventions to assist low-income populations. MDRC’s 

subsequent National Supported Work Demonstration included a rigorous 

experimental research design that found the interventions did not work; 

nonexperimental evaluations of similar state programs yielded 

inconclusive results. A provision permitting waiver of federal rules on 

condition that states rigorously evaluate those demonstrations—referred 

to as section 1115 waivers—laid the framework for the next generation of 

welfare experiments. Results of these demonstrations helped shape the 

provisions of the JOBS program, enacted in 1988, and a new generation of 

state experiments that, in turn, shaped the 1996 reforms. 

In contrast, Coast Guard officials described their relatively recent 

development of evaluation capacity as an outgrowth of operational selfexaminations, conducted in response to budget constraints. They 

explained that steep budget cuts in the mid-1990s led the Coast Guard to 

adopt self-assessments for feedback information on how effectively the 

agency was using resources, under Total Quality Management initiatives. 

More recently, the impetus for program evaluation stemmed from the 

emphasis placed on assessing and improving results in GPRA and the 

President’s Management Agenda. According to Coast Guard officials, they 

now view the evaluation of program and unit performance as “good 

business.” Having systems in place that can furnish the necessary trend 

data has been particularly useful, they said, in supporting and negotiating 

budget requests. These systems allow the agency to forecast what level of 

Institutionalizing an 

Evaluation Culture 
Page 17 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

performance, under different budget scenarios, appropriations committees 

might expect. The trend data also allow for assessing performance goals 

and planning program evaluations where performance improvement is 

needed. 

NSF applied the same basic approach it takes to assessing the promise of 

research proposals to evaluating the quality of completed research 

programs. NSF described revising the COV process over time, fine-tuning 

review guidelines to obtain more useful feedback on research programs. 

GPRA’s emphasis on reporting program outcomes was the impetus for 

changes in NSF’s process to include an assessment of how well the results 

of research programs advance NSF outcome goals. NSF characterizes 

itself as a learning organization. As such, it applies lessons learned to 

improving feedback processes in order to keep pace with accountability 

demands and to obtain more useful information about how completed 

research contributes to NSF’s mission. 

Agencies used two main strategies to meet the demand for better quality 

data. On their own or with partners, they developed and improved 

administrative data systems as an aid in obtaining more relevant and 

reliable data. And when necessary, agencies arranged for special data 

collection, specifically for research and evaluation use. Initiating new data 

collection might be warranted by constraints in existing data systems or 

the excessive cost of modifying those systems. 

The Coast Guard has developed or improved accounting, financial, and 

performance reporting systems to enhance access to data on program 

operations. The Coast Guard, with its diverse program missions (for 

example, Search and Rescue, Drug Interdiction, and Aids to Navigation) 

deploys staff and equipment in multiple tasks. The Coast Guard’s Abstract 

of Operations System is the primary source used to identify the allocation 

of Coast Guard resources and effort. The database tallies the hours spent 

operating Coast Guard boats and aircraft, allowing the Coast Guard to 

understand how assets are being used in meeting missions. Managers 

receive monthly reports and budget officials found this information useful 

for preparing performance-based budgeting scenarios. 

HUD relied on management information systems (MIS), comprised of 

grantee reports, to keep up with program activities. The data provided 

critical information on how grant money is being used and what services 

are received. An official at HUD noted, “Information systems are critical 

and are becoming more critical every day,” but described establishing a 

Assuring Data Quality 

Improving Administrative 

Systems 
Page 18 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

national MIS for CDBG as “excruciating work.” Because of the diversity of 

CDBG grantees and their activities, it has been difficult to obtain good 

quality data on a wide range of activities. HUD has improved the quality of 

information by working with grantees to promote complete and accurate 

reporting and by automating data collection. With automated data 

collection, HUD can monitor the completeness of information, edit the 

data for possible errors, and easily transmit queries arising from those 

edits back to the source. The CDBG MIS is owned by the program office, 

which acknowledged the valuable development assistance received from 

the central analytic office. 

HUD officials also noted that, particularly when service delivery rests with 

a third party, agencies must develop evaluation plans sufficiently in 

advance to ensure collection of data essential to the evaluation. To 

evaluate new programs or initiatives, they thought evaluation plans 

identifying necessary data should be prepared during program 

development. 

Some evaluations rely on data specially collected for that study. For 

example, agencies may contract out to experienced researchers who 

collect highly specialized or resource-intensive data. Alternatively, 

agencies may create specialized data systems. Rather than impose 

requirements on state program administrative data, NHTSA developed a 

common data set by extracting standardized data from the states’ systems. 

NSF developed a special peer review process to obtain data on program 

outcomes. 

The Coast Guard may contract out specialized data collection because a 

particular research skill is needed or because sufficient staff are not 

available. For example, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs Service, and 

ONDCP jointly sponsored a study on measuring the deterrent effect of 

enforcement operations on drug smuggling. To determine how smugglers 

assess risk and what factors influence their drug smuggling behavior, the 

study included interviews with high-level cocaine smugglers in federal 

prisons. This aspect of the study required specialized data collection and 

interviewing acumen beyond their staff’s expertise. In other drug 

interdiction and deterrence studies cosponsored with ONDCP, the Coast 

Guard contracted with the federally sponsored Center for Naval Analyses, 

which could provide specific services needed for prison interviews and the 

substantial data collection required. 

NHTSA devised a strategy to create a common national data set from 

varied state data. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 

Conducting Special Data 

Collections 
Page 19 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

established in 1975, provides detailed annual reports on all fatal motor 

vehicle crashes during the preceding year, in the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FARS crash record data files contain more 

than 100 coded data elements characterizing the crash, vehicles, and 

people involved. Data on crashes must be compiled separately, by state, 

from multiple source documents (police accident reports and medical 

service reports) and state administrative records (vehicle registrations and 

drivers’ licenses). NHTSA trains state staff and supervises the coding of 

the myriad data elements from each state into the common format of 

standard FARS data collection forms. Training procedures for each state 

must typically give extensive attention to the detailed content and form of 

the state systems for compiling police accident reports and other records. 

These systems often differ between states. Some data items are available 

from multiple sources within a state, which facilitates cross-checking 

information accuracy. 

NHTSA uses a variety of quality control procedures to assess and ensure 

the accuracy of several public use data files. The ongoing collection, 

compilation, and monitoring of these statistical data series greatly 

facilitates analysis of variation in these data. Such analyses, in turn, lay the 

foundation for continuing improvements in measurement and in data 

quality assurance. In addition, the scientific standards that guide NHTSA 

data quality assurance (1) reflect joint endeavors with other major federal 

statistical agencies (for example, the Federal Committee on Statistical 

Methodology) and (2) respond to oversight of federal statistical standards 

by OMB.10

To assess research outcomes, NSF created specialized data by using peer 

review assessments to produce qualitative indicators. To provide credible 

data to meet GPRA requirements, NSF sought and obtained approval from 

OMB for the use of nonquantitative performance indicators for assessing 

outcome goals. Quantitative measures such as literature citations were 

considered inadequate as an indicator of making substantive scientific 

contributions. Instead, NSF uses an alternative formata qualitative 

assessment of research outcomesrelying on the professional judgment 

of peer reviewers to characterize their programs’ success in making 

 10See The Department of Transportation’s Information Dissemination Quality 

Guidelines (http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/dataqualityguidelines.pdf), as well as the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics’ Guide to Good Statistical Practice (see www.bts.gov). 
Page 20 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

contributions to science. In order to obtain these new data, questions and 

criteria were added to the COV review templates. 

The five agencies we reviewed invested in training staff in research and 

evaluation methods, but frequently relied on outside experts to obtain the 

specialized expertise needed for evaluation. NHTSA, however, maintains 

in-house a sizeable staff of analysts skilled in measurement and statistics 

to develop its statistical series and to identify and evaluate safety issues. In 

addition, HUD, as well as HHS through ACF and ASPE, supported training 

for program partners to take prominent roles in evaluating their own 

programs. 

ACF’s long-standing collaborative relationship with ASPE helped build the 

agency’s expertise directlythrough advising on specific evaluations, as 

well as indirectlythrough building the expertise of the research 

community that conducts those evaluations. ASPE coordinates and 

consults on evaluations conducted throughout HHS. ACF staff described 

getting intellectual support from ASPE—as well as sharing in joint 

decisions and pooling dollar resources—which boosted the credibility of 

their work in ACF. At ACF, skills in statistics or research are not enough. 

They also require people with good communication skills, who can explain 

the benefits of participation in evaluations to states and localities. For 

decades, ASPE has funded evaluations, as well as research on poverty, by 

academic researchers, contract firms, and state agencies. ASPE staff 

described their investment in poverty research as providing additional 

assets for evaluation capacity because, in the field of poverty research, the 

academic world overlaps with the contract firms. They believe this means 

that (1) better research gets done because prominent economists and 

sociologists are involved and (2) research on poverty is better integrated 

with policy analysis than in other fields. For example, agency staff noted 

that their state agency partners run the National Association for Welfare 

Research and Statistics, but academics and contractors also participate in 

National Association conferences. Agency staff also noted that the 

readability of researchers’ reports had improved over time, as researchers 

gained experience with communicating to policymakers. 

The Coast Guard builds capacity in-house and has developed a training 

program that encourages selected military officers to obtain a Masters in 

Public Administration (MPA) degree. The Coast Guard selects experts who 

already have military experience. After receiving a degree, staff are 

required to do 3- or 4-year payback tours of duty at headquarters, in the 

role of evaluation analyst, before returning as officers to the field. Staff 

Obtaining Expertise 
Page 21 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

trained in operations research might do more statistical analysis at 

headquarters; those who studied policy and public administration might be 

more involved in strategic planning and evaluation. The rotations provide 

(1) field officers with analytic and policy experience and (2) headquarters 

administrative and planning offices with field experience. 

To lay the groundwork for port security planning following the September 

11 terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard initiated a process for assessing, over 

a 3-year period, security conditions of 55 ports. The agency contracted 

with TRW Systems to conduct detailed vulnerability assessments of these 

ports. The Coast Guard also contracts for special studies with the agency’s 

Research and Development Center, the Center for Naval Analyses, and the 

American Bureau of Shipping. In some instances, the Coast Guard used a 

contractor because the necessary staff were unavailable in-house to 

collect certain types of data; for example, a national observational study of 

boaters’ use of personal flotation devices (such as life jackets); and a 

Web-based survey of how mariners use various navigational aids, such as 

buoys and electronic charting. 

NSF, because of the broad array of subject matter disciplines it covers, 

brings in for a COV, knowledgeable experts from the scientific and 

engineering communities. COV reviewers must be familiar with their 

research areas to be able to assess the contribution of funded research to 

NSF’s goals of supporting cutting-edge science. As an approach, peer 

review involves dozens of outside experts and can be costly; however, 

because selection confers prestige, researchers are willing to donate their 

time to the agency. NSF strives to protect COV independence by excluding 

researchers who are current recipients of NSF awards. In addition, to 

examine broader issues than a particular research program, NSF may 

contract with the National Academy of Sciences or the National Institutes 

of Health for a special study. For other issues that pertain to changes in a 

field of research or the need for a new strategic direction for research, 

NSF may put together a blue ribbon panel of experts to provide advice, 

direction, and guidance. 

Because of their reliance on state and local agencies for both 

implementing and evaluating their programs, some of the reviewed 

agencies found it necessary, in order to improve data quality, to help 

develop state and local evaluation expertise. In HHS, ACF and ASPE have 

used several strategies to help develop such expertise. ASPE provided 

states and counties with grants to study applicants, caseload dynamics, 

and those who leave welfare. Because states sometimes play a major role 

in collecting and analyzing data for evaluations, ASPE supported reports 

Providing Technical Expertise 

to Program Partners 
Page 22 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

and conferences on data collection and analysis methods, for example, on 

linking administrative data and research uses of administrative data. 

Beginning in 1998, ACF has sponsored annual Welfare Reform Evaluation 

conferences that bring together state evaluation and policy staff, 

researchers, and evaluators to share findings and improve the quality and 

usefulness of welfare reform evaluation efforts. To help develop the next 

generation of welfare experiments, and engage some states that had not 

previously been involved, ACF provided planning grants and technical 

assistance. With the help of a contractor, ACF met with state officials to 

examine the lessons learned from previous state experiments and help 

them design their own. 

HUD also provides technical assistance to assist local program partners 

design and manage their programs. HUD provides funding to strengthen 

the capabilities of program recipients or providerstypically housing or 

community development organizations. HUD also provides extensive 

training in monitoring project grants and encourages risk-based 

monitoring and the flagging of potential problems. A trustworthy 

administrative database is critical and provides HUD with the information 

it needs for oversight of how funds are being used. 

The five agencies used collaborative partnerships to obtain access to 

needed data and expertise for evaluations. Several of these collaborative 

partnerships developed in pursuit of common goals. Whereas program 

structures, such as state grants, may create program partners, it often took 

time and effort to develop collaborative partners. To accomplish the latter, 

some agencies actively educated program partners and stakeholders about 

evaluations and solicited their involvement. 

Engaging state program partners in evaluation can be difficult, given 

(1) the voluntary nature of evaluation of state welfare-to-work 

demonstrations since the waiver evaluation requirement was removed in 

the 1996 reforms and (2) the risks and burdens of following research 

protocols. In addition, states may have new ethical reservationssince the 

1996 reforms put a time limit on families’ receipt of benefitsabout 

withholding potentially helpful services. ACF must therefore entice states 

to be partners in evaluations that require random assignment. One strategy 

is to provide funding for the evaluation: ACF used to share funding with 

the states 50-50. Another is to explain the benefit to them of obtaining 

rigorous feedback on how well their program is working. ACF also relies 

on a history of credible and reliable research. To help gain the cooperation 

Building Collaborative 

Partnerships 
Page 23 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

of state and local officials, the agency can point to the good federal-state 

cooperation it has developed in numerous locations, and show that 

random assignment is practical. 

The poverty research community has not only provided expertise for the 

state welfare evaluations but also helped build congressional support for 

those evaluations. For example, researchers briefed congressional 

committees on evaluation findings, as well as the power of experimental 

research to reliably detect program effects. The involvement of 

researchers who are prominent economists and sociologists also helped in 

drawing lessons from individual evaluations into a cumulative policyrelevant knowledge base. This interconnected web of diverse stakeholders 

interested in welfare reformthe researchers, the agency, the states, and 

Congresshas sustained and strengthened a program of research that 

uses evaluation findings for both program accountability and 

improvement. 

HUD’s PD&R takes advantage of opportunities to involve a greater 

diversity of perspectives, methods, and researchers in HUD research by 

forming active partnerships with researchers, as well as practitioners, 

advocates, industry groups, and foundations. A notable illustration is 

HUD’s involvement with the Aspen Institute’s Roundtable on 

Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families.11 The 

Roundtable, established in 1992, is a forum for groups engaged in these 

initiatives to discuss challenges and lessons learned. In 1994, the 

Roundtable formed the Steering Committee on Evaluation to address key 

theory and methods challenges in evaluating community initiatives. Along 

with funding from 11 foundations to support the Roundtable, specific 

grant funds were provided by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford 

Foundation, HUD, HHS, and Pew Charitable Trusts. To ensure that causal 

links and the role of context are fully understood, the Steering Committee 

sponsored projects to, for example, clarify and determine outcome 

indicators and identify methods for collecting and analyzing data. 

 11Comprehensive Community Initiatives are neighborhood-based efforts to improve the 

lives of individuals and families in distressed neighborhoods by working comprehensively 

across social, economic, and physical sectors. The Roundtable, a forum for addressing 

challenges and lessons learned, now includes about 30 foundation sponsors, program 

directors, technical assistance providers, evaluators, and public sector officials. 
Page 24 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Although agencies used a variety of strategies to maximize evaluation 

capacity, they also cited factors that impede conducting evaluations or 

improving evaluation capacity, including the following: 

• Constraints on spending program resources on oversight: Some agency 

officials claimed that the lack of a statutory mandate or dedicated funds 

for evaluation impeded investing program funds to conduct studies or to 

improve administrative data. 

• Local control over the design and implementation of flexible programs: To 

meet local needs, the discretion given to state and local agencies in many 

federal programs can make it difficult to set federal goals and describe 

national results. Moreover, variation in evaluation capacity at the local 

level can impede the collection of uniform, quality data on program 

performance. As one official noted, when data are derived from data 

systems built by states to serve their own needs, federal agencies should 

expect to pay to get data consistency across states. 

• Restrictions on federal information collection: Some agency officials 

voiced concerns about OMB’s reviews of agencies’ proposed data 

collection per the Paperwork Reduction Act. They claimed that these 

reviews constrained their use of some standard research procedures, such 

as extensively pilot-testing surveys. They also claimed that the length (up 

to 4 months) and detailed nature of these reviews impeded the timely 

acquisition of information on program performance. 

The five agencies we reviewed employed various strategies to obtain 

useful evaluations of program effectiveness. Just as the programs differed 

from one another, so did the look and content of the evaluations and so 

did the types of challenges faced by agencies. As other agencies aim to 

develop evaluation capacity, the examples in this report may help them 

identify ways to obtain the data and expertise needed to produce useful 

and credible information on results. 

Whether evaluation activities were an intrinsic part of the agency’s history 

or a response to new external forces, learning from evaluation allowed for 

continuous improvements in operations and programs, and the 

advancement of a knowledge base. In addition, each agency tied 

evaluation efforts to accountability demands fostered by GPRA. 

Because identifying opportunities for program improvement was so 

important in sustaining management support for evaluation in these five 

agencies, other agencies may be more likely to support and use the results 

of evaluations that are designed to explain program performance than 

Factors That Impede 

Building Evaluation 

Capacity 

Observations 
Page 25 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

those that focus solely on whether results were achieved. Similarly, OMB’s 

PART reviews might be useful in encouraging agencies to conduct and use 

evaluations if budget discussions are focused on what agencies have 

learned from evaluations about how to improve performance. 

Many, if not most, federal agencies rely on third party efforts to help them 

achieve goals. Agencies might benefit from the examples we present of 

agencies actively educating and involving program partners as a way to 

leverage resources and expertise and meet their partners’ needs as well. 

HSS and HUD provided technical comments that were incorporated where 

appropriate throughout the report. HUD pointed out that advance 

planning was required to ensure collection of key data for an evaluation. 

We included this point in the discussion of assuring data quality. 

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees 

and other interested parties. We will also make copies available on 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have questions concerning this report, please call me or Stephanie 

Shipman at (202) 512-2700. Valerie Caracelli also made key contributions 

to this report. 

Nancy Kingsbury 

Managing Director, Applied Research and Methods 

Agency Comments 
Bibliography 

Page 26 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Boyle, Richard, and Donald Lemaire (eds.) Building Effective Evaluation 

Capacity: Lessons from Practice. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction 

Publishers, 1999. 

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; National Academy 

of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; and Institute of Medicine. 

Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government 

Performance and Results Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 

1999. 

Compton, Donald W., Michael Baizerman, and Stacey Hueftle Stockdill 

(eds.). “The Art, Craft, and Science of Evaluation Capacity Building.” New 

Directions for Evaluation 93 (spring 2002). 

Fulbright-Anderson, Karen, Anne C. Kubisch, and James P. Connell (eds.). 

New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Vol. 2: Theory, 

Measurement, and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute 

Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and 

Families, 1998. 

Gueron, Judith M. “Presidential Address—Fostering Research Excellence 

and Impacting Policy and Practice: The Welfare Reform Story.” The 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, no. 2 (spring 2003): 163-

74. 

Gueron, Judith M., and Edward Pauly. From Welfare to Work. New York: 

Russell Sage Foundation, 1991. 

Newcomer, Kathryn E., and Mary Ann Scheirer. “Using Evaluation to 

Support Performance Management: A Guide for Federal Executives.” The 

PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government, 

Innovations Management Series (January 2001). 

Office of Management and Budget. “Assessing Program Performance for 

the FY 2004 Budget.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/part_assessing2004.html 

(April 2003). 

Office of Management and Budget. “Preparation and Submission of 

Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program 

Performance Reports.” Circular no. A-11, pt. 6. (June 2002). 

Bibliography 
Bibliography 

Page 27 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Office of Management and Budget. “Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies.” Federal Register 67, no. 36 (February 

22, 2002). 

Office of Management and Budget. Measuring and Reporting Sources of 

Error in Surveys. Statistical Policy Working Paper 31, July 2001. 

http://www.fcsm.gov/reports#fcsm. (April 2003). 

Office of Management and Budget. Performance and Management 

Assessments, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004 (April 2003). 

Office of Management and Budget. The President’s Management Agenda, 

Fiscal Year 2002. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/pma_index.html (April 

2003). 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Measuring the Deterrent Effect of 

Enforcement Operations on Drug Smuggling, 1991-1999. Prepared by 

Abt Associates, Inc. Washington, D.C.: August 2001. 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications (April 2003). 

Rossi, Peter H., and Katharine C. Lyall. Reforming Public Welfare: A 

Critique of the Negative Income Tax Experiment. New York: Russell Sage 

Foundation, 1976. 

Sonnichsen, Richard C. High-Impact Internal Evaluation: A 

Practitioner’s Guide to Evaluating and Consulting Inside 

Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1999. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation’s 

Information Dissemination Quality Guidelines. October 1, 2002. 

http://www.bts.gov/statpol (April 2003). 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

BTS Guide to Good Statistical Practice. September 2002. 

(http://www.bts.gov/statpol/guide/index.html (April 2003).
Related GAO Products 

Page 28 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service 

Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed. GAO-03-204. 

Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2002. 

Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for Setting and Monitoring Levels of 

Effort for All Missions. GAO-03-155. Washington, D.C.: November 12, 

2002. 

HUD Management: Impact Measurement Needed for Technical 

Assistance. GAO-03-12. Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2002. 

Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How Information 

Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals. GAO-02-923. Washington, 

D.C.: September 30, 2002. 

Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges. GAO-02-1106T. 

Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002. 

Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for 

Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge. GAO-02-775. Washington, 

D.C.: August 30, 2002. 

Port Security: Nation Faces Formidable Challenges in Making New 

Initiatives Successful. GAO-02-993T. Washington, D.C.: August 5, 2002. 

Public Housing: New Assessment System Holds Potential for Evaluating 

Performance. GAO-02-282. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002. 

National Science Foundation: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and 

Addressing Major Management Challenges. GAO-01-758. Washington, 

D.C.: June 15, 2001. 

Motor Vehicle Safety: NHTSA’s Ability to Detect and Recall Defective 

Replacement Crash Parts Is Limited. GAO-01-225. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2001. 

Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain 

Program Performance. GAO/GGD-00-204. Washington, D.C.: September 

29, 2000. 

Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation 

of Agency Performance Information. GAO/GGD-99-139. Washington, D.C.: 

July 30, 1999. 

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 29 GAO-03-454 Program Evaluation 

Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies 

Vary. GAO/RCED-99-99. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 1999. 

Managing for Results: Measuring Program Results That Are Under 

Limited Federal Control. GAO/GGD-99-16. Washington, D.C.: December 

11, 1998. 

Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and 

Performance Information. GAO/GGD-98-137. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 

1998. 

Program Evaluation: Agencies Challenged by New Demand for 

Information on Program Results. GAO/GGD-98-53. Washington, D.C.: 

April 24, 1998. 

Program Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships 

GAO/GGD-98-26 Washington, D.C.: April, 1998. 

Measuring Performance: Strengths and Limitations of Research 

Indicators. GAO/RCED-97-91. Washington, D.C.: March 21. 1997. 

Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the 

Congress. GAO/PEMD-95-1. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 1995. 

(460529) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs